trillian VS gatekeeper

Archived. Not sure when. :( I'm not sure what if anything is a decent replacement/substitute.

In the README examples I see text about what I think is Certificate Transparency. That was definitely the first thing this made me think of. There's also a lot of talk in the project about CONIKS[1], & associate research papers are about 'bringing key transparency to end users'.

The scenarios[2] are interesting, but I'm not sure fully how this project helps. They explicitly call out Upspin for encrypted storage, which was linked recently[3].

It appears to make heavy use of the Trillian cryptographically verifiable data store[4].

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/04/coniks.html

[2] https://github.com/google/keytransparency/blob/master/docs/s...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31520559

[4] https://github.com/google/trillian

Related is Google Trillian: https://github.com/google/trillian

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37058322/how-can-i-verif...

CT (Certificate Transparency) is another approach to validating certs wherein x.509 cert logs are written to a consistent, available blockchain (or in e.g. google/trillian, a centralized db where one party has root and backup responsibilities also with Merkle hashes for verifying data integrity). https://certificate.transparency.dev/ https://github.com/google/trillian

Does docker ever make the docker socket available over the network, over an un-firewalled port by default?

Yeah, right on!

We're looking in more depth at other use cases, developing a better understanding of which types of problems this might be useful for, and ways to reason about the properties you want/get from using systems like this (e.g. https://github.com/google/trillian/tree/master/docs/claimant...)

[Disclaimer: I work on CT, Trillian, and some other related projects]

When the Gatekeeper validatingwebhook came up, I was really worried that'd be the issue! Regardless I'd recommend anyone who cares about their cluster not collapsing to change the gatekeeper webhook to only intercept resources you care about: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/pull/1806

Kyverno adds an extra layer of security where only the allowed type of manifest is deployed onto kubernetes, otherwise, it will reject or we can set validationFailureAction to audit which only logs the policy violation message for reporting. Kubewarden and Gatekeeper are alternative tools available to enforce policies on Kubernetes CRD.

Now, we have the hardest part resolved and let's turn our attention to the OPA Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper uses the OPA Constraint Framework to describe and enforce policy. Right now there are mainly 3 parts we should pay attention:

They enable you to establish the policies and regulations that govern cluster deployments and applications. Using predefined policies, policy engines can dynamically modify or create configurations. Policy engines such as Gatekeeper and Kyverno can be leveraged to meet legal and compliance requirements while maintaining operational flexibility and development speed.

Setup policy around what resource requirements can be requested by an app per environment. OPA and gatekeeper or kyverno can help. Setup access control for who can create or modify apps.

OPA Gatekeeper is an open source, general purpose policy engine. OPA decouples policy decisions from other responsibilities of an application, like those commonly referred to as business logic. OPA works equally well making decisions for Kubernetes, Microservices, functional application authorization and more, thanks to its single unified policy language.